Apparently the inside thinking of Syngenta was revealed in discovery over a lawsuit in Illinois seeking clean-up of damage from atrazine. It turns out that industrial food production, which relies on weed control agents like atrazine, has impacts on the natural environment. Shocking, eh? So Syngenta attacks Tyrone Hayes, the initial researcher who discovered that atrazine feminizes male frogs. Sounds good, where can I get some?

The other thing that caught my eye was the presence of Alex Avery (Hudson Institute), the Heartland Institute and Steven Milloy and his JunkScience.com outfit taking up the cause of freedom for Syngenta. Of course, these are some of the same organizations that generate climate change denial "papers". Milloy's attack on DDT regulation was paraphrased by mrgybe in his defense of DDT.

There will always be pimps that will apologize for unethical businesses. The responsibilities of citizenship include testing the credibility of one's sources to make sure that your are not repeating the garbage by paid corporate hacks. It would be interesting to see this responsibility taken seriously by so-called conservatives.

But we can always package this as freedom--the freedom to expose the general public to feminizing chemicals without their knowledge.

Bard, in a mindboggling example of non-logic from those who seem to spend their life inside the fact-free bubble, now says:

Quote:

San-Fran-Sicko....

Hey, how many millions of poor humans have died because they banned DDT?

For sure, Bardo, fewer people have died because they banned DDT than have died of hunger, or cancer, from cuts to poverty safety nets and under-regulated chemicals. DDT may have been the most profitable pesticide, but it certainly wasn't the only one. Chemical companies continue to develop pesticides, or in the case of the current thread, weed killers. It is only later that we find out that the corporate testing was sort of flawed, and the pesticides are actually killing invertebrates in all the streams (pretty much all of the organophosphates), or having endocrine impacts on humans, or ....Even with that said, pesticides have their place--which should be in a network of careful regulations that make sure their benefits are much greater than their adverse impacts.

In fact, one of the problems with broad spectrum pesticides, including DDT, is they initially kill so many insects, and higher order animals, that the ecology collapses and pests increase. The second problem is that the insects build up resistance, and the pesticides no longer work. They are finding the same things out about over-prescribing antibiotics--they destroy much of the beneficial organisms that live in our body and help such mundane things as digestion. But I guess you would have to pay some attention to science to know these things.

If you are referring to DDT use on mosquito nets for malaria, it is allowed, and supported by environmental organizations. But you can believe the Steve Milloy's of the world if you want. The facts, though interesting, didn't seem to enter into your reasoning...

Cancer deaths and hunger are okay as long as corporate profits are maintained, eh?

When are you guys going to realize that I will not let absurd assertions from right wing hacks go without rebuttal?

If you are referring to DDT use on mosquito nets for malaria, it is allowed, and supported by environmental organizations. But you can believe the Steve Milloy's of the world if you want. The facts, though interesting, didn't seem to enter into your reasoning...

DDT use on bed nets is NOT supported by environmental organizations, or by the organizations that actually work to minimize the impact of malaria. Pyrethroids are used.

Don't rely on "facts" provided by someone only interested mocking others. Despite his repeated bloviating on the topic, he has absolutely no idea about malaria control programs.

mrgybe certainly has more experience and knowledge of Africa than do I. However, his grasp of facts remains tenuous. Support from environmental groups is very old news:

Quote:

WHO gives indoor use of DDT a clean bill of health for controlling malaria

WHO promotes indoor spraying with insecticides as one of three main interventions to fight malaria

15 September 2006 | Washington, D.C. - Nearly thirty years after phasing out the widespread use of indoor spraying with DDT and other insecticides to control malaria, the World Health Organization (WHO) today announced that this intervention will once again play a major role in its efforts to fight the disease. WHO is now recommending the use of indoor residual spraying (IRS) not only in epidemic areas but also in areas with constant and high malaria transmission, including throughout Africa.

“The scientific and programmatic evidence clearly supports this reassessment,” said Dr Anarfi Asamoa-Baah, WHO Assistant Director-General for HIV/AIDS, TB and Malaria. "Indoor residual spraying is useful to quickly reduce the number of infections caused by malaria-carrying mosquitoes. IRS has proven to be just as cost effective as other malaria prevention measures, and DDT presents no health risk when used properly.”

WHO actively promoted indoor residual spraying for malaria control until the early 1980s when increased health and environmental concerns surrounding DDT caused the organization to stop promoting its use and to focus instead on other means of prevention. Extensive research and testing has since demonstrated that well-managed indoor residual spraying programmes using DDT pose no harm to wildlife or to humans.

"We must take a position based on the science and the data," said Dr Arata Kochi, Director of WHO’s Global Malaria Programme. “One of the best tools we have against malaria is indoor residual house spraying. Of the dozen insecticides WHO has approved as safe for house spraying, the most effective is DDT.”

Indoor residual spraying is the application of long-acting insecticides on the walls and roofs of houses and domestic animal shelters in order to kill malaria-carrying mosquitoes that land on these surfaces.

“Indoor spraying is like providing a huge mosquito net over an entire household for around-the-clock protection,” said U.S. Senator Tom Coburn, a leading advocate for global malaria control efforts. “Finally, with WHO’s unambiguous leadership on the issue, we can put to rest the junk science and myths that have provided aid and comfort to the real enemy – mosquitoes – which threaten the lives of more than 300 million children each year.”

Views about the use of insecticides for indoor protection from malaria have been changing in recent years. Environmental Defense, which launched the anti-DDT campaign in the 1960s, now endorses the indoor use of DDT for malaria control, as does the Sierra Club and the Endangered Wildlife Trust. The recently-launched President’s Malaria Initiative (PMI) announced last year that it would also fund DDT spraying on the inside walls of households to prevent the disease.

The facts, though interesting, don't fit into the right wing narrative--or that of their apologists.

I'm afraid the more he writes, the more he reveals his lack of knowledge of the topic. This is what I wrote a couple of years ago:

mrgbe wrote:

there is no suggestion that DDT be sprayed in massive quantities over millions of acres. Rather, it should be sprayed on a small scale.....in dwellings, on stagnant water etc..... exactly the same way that pest control services do it in homes throughout this country. That, combined with insecticide treated mosquito nets, is the only realistic way presently available to make a dramatic impact in an affordable manner.

DDT is NOT used on bed nets as was so confidently asserted previously when he was mocking Bard's lack of knowledge. It is used for small scale spraying, either independent of bed nets, or in combination with them. Entirely different. Berkeley has routinely described me as an "apologist for Monsanto" because of my support for small scale use of DDT......which is also supported by all the major health organizations.

I have been involved with malaria control programs since 1993, and currently work with one of the largest NGOs operating in Africa. I know what I am talking about.........Berkeley most certainly does not.

You cannot post new topics in this forumYou cannot reply to topics in this forumYou cannot edit your posts in this forumYou cannot delete your posts in this forumYou cannot vote in polls in this forumYou cannot attach files in this forumYou cannot download files in this forum